At the council meeting earlier this year you said you knew nothing about it but would not investigate due to it being historic

Last night at the meeting you stated that there were two sides to the story, thereby indicating that you knew of another side which somehow implied that it exonerated the corruption

Your statement indicated to me that you know a version which I am not familiar with which makes me a villain and Mr Wells an employee acting legitimately and I therefore by way of privacy act request all information which you hold or have been told of which concerns the corruption in the dog and stock control division of Waitakere city council where Mr Wells was contracting to himself via the attached MOU

To spell it out Mr Wells signed the attached MOU with the previous dog control manager Tom Didovich.

Not only did AWINZ not exist ( basically that is proved by the fact that the audit papers shows that it only had four meetings since 2004). The trust was established in 2000 by its own terms it ceased to exist 1.3 .2003 see page 4 .

The audit report proves it never held bank accounts so we now have a trust which never met and did not hold assets.

It also did not make the application for approved status on 22.11.1999 and it was not an oral trust as claimed by Neil Wells as the trustees that Tom Didovich paid him to recruit were recruited under a different deed

It was Tom Didovich the manager of dog control who witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the deed established in 2000 and Paid Wells to train the dog control officers. He acted without authority for and on behalf of council went on to become a trustee of a trust designed to conceal the corruption in 2006 .

I hope that you do not condone such actions

Under the privacy act I have the right to make corrections and quite obviously you have the story wrong.

I am extremely concerned that you should think that there are two sides as there is only one side portrayed in the documents I recovered from council and MAF and that is that Council has failed to investigate this properly preferring to see me the whistle-blower as the villain

I will be putting this email and my letter to you up on Transparency and will be directing everyone to it at each and every candidate meeting.

I felt that you got close to defaming me last night by suggesting that I knew of the other side.

I was denied a defence for the defamation claim .Wells never produced one bit of evidence. It is being appealed at this very moment for obtaining a judgment by fraud. .. the alleged defamation does not change the facts revealed in the documents held by council . if you can’t find them I will be happy to supply them to you . Your own documents will reveal corruption . Look at the audit report they expected AWINZ to be incorporated, and to be acting with the councils consent . council denied any involvement. The audit report does not look for corruption it only dealt with the obligations of AWINZ as far as MAF was concerned.. no one went back to the fact that AWINZ did not exist.. it was quickly re created in 2006 to cover up

Transparency New Zealand is a voluntary organisation . We are not funded in any way other than by Donations
If you support our work and wish to see us continue please support us with your donation. Thank you
account number 01-0258-0045994-00